Matt Lohry

I’ll take a weird old Frankenstein bridge over a new UCEB any day of the week!

This bridge is now doomed. They have no problems boldly announcing that the “reconstruction” includes replacement of the bridge with a new “concrete beam single span bridge”...translation: UCEB :(

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MNSTLOUIS/bulletins...

If it is not “uneducated foamers”, I’ll be sorely disappointed! X>D

I finally got to drive across this bridge on my way to Minnesota from home—it’s big and fairly impressive; but honestly, I still found the lift bridge a lot more enjoyable to cross than this one.

These photos are very interesting—the white deposits are mostly a sodium carbonate material resulting from a process called alkali-silica reaction (ASR), where the highly alkaline cement binder in the concrete reacts with the high silica content in the aggregates to form a white gel. This gel expands and cracks the concrete over time to form crack patterns in the concrete (photo #12). This process takes many decades to occur, so you normally won’t see this in newer structures. Some of the heavy white stuff running down the side of the pier might be calcium deposits from either the river water or water running down from the roadway, but the white deposits seeping from the cracks in the concrete is likely the sodium from the ASR.

The deck also has longitudinal runner planks, which is indicative of a road bridge. Also, the portal bracing is not high enough to accommodate rail traffic.

Mike,

A "mail order bridge" is a mass-produced, single-piece bridge built to a cookie-cutter pattern, welded together, and lifted into place with a crane. They are normally prefab trusses or arches and have no distinguishing features to set them apart from one another. This is one of two identical footbridges in this area; the other is about 1000 feet to the north over the same river. That bridge did not replace any previous bridge. I live around here, so I see these on a regular basis.

Label me a damn fool for thinking this bridge might be around for the long term, as it was in a park-type setting and was in excellent condition—I drove by today and saw an ugly Walmart-inspired MOB where this bridge once stood!

Leslie,

Sadly, I wouldn’t hold my breath on this one—like 99.9% of historic bridges that are “available for adaptive reuse”, it’s likely that no one will want to pony up the hundreds of thousands that it would cost just to move this monster—that $100,000 that they’re offering would likely not even cover mobilization of equipment. Additionally, building a proper substructure to support this would cost many hundreds of thousands more; I’m sure trying not to be a Debbie downer on this, but it’s looking pretty grim for this beauty :’(

Robert,

The pictures that James took are of another bridge just north of the one you're referring to. I've corrected the pin location to reflect its actual location.

This actually appears to be a deck plate girder with timber approaches.

I’ve seen very large culverts and very small arches, so I don’t think the difference is related to size—I think the difference is in the construction—culverts are place-and-fill, where the entire structure (round or rectangular, metal or concrete) is dropped into place and filled over the top. Arches are built up like bridges. Even though corrugated steel was used, this to me is built up as a bridge, and qualifies as an arch.

Apparently this road has been closed for only a couple of years...it's amazing how little time it takes for a road to look like it's been abandoned for a century after it closes.

I wish I were closer to here--there is what appears to be a very old Pratt truss footbridge over the canal about a half-mile north of this location. Lat/Long coords:

43.134748° -75.674952°

Canal St. streetview shows a good view of the east end.

The bridge in the postcard photo is probably the pre-1939 bridge. It looks markedly different than the current one.